By Ben Johnson
The Washington Stand
During this summer’s monkeypox outbreak, one man who caught the virus casually told an interviewer something that would have seemed impossible to most readers: “I have a boyfriend and my boyfriend has a husband and we all live together.” To most Americans, the combination — of words or relationships — would seem shocking. Yet some do not see the lack of monogamy in same-sex marriages as a problem: LGBT activists privately hope to break the “heteronormativity” of having only two partners in a marriage, “to infect the straight world” with polyamory, and to “radically alter” or abolish marriage altogether.
The practice, and advocacy, of non-monogamous “marriage” is one of the secrets buried deeply in the LGBT movement’s closet. Publicly, they insisted that calling same-sex relationships “marriage” would have no impact on society. Merely raising the possibility that tinkering with one facet of marriage might set the entire institution up for reinvention led to huffing exasperation. The Grown-Ups insisted such concerns merely reflected the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Such things would never happen in real life, they assured us.
“[G]ay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents,” declaimed Jonathan Rausch of the Brookings Institution four days after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell opinion. “Yet this non sequitur just won’t go away: ‘Once we stop limiting marriage to male-plus-female, we’ll have to stop limiting it at all! Why only two? Why not three or four?’”
Seven years later, the returns are in, and the “slippery slope” warning proved prescient. This April, Kimberly Rhoten of the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition announced that non-monogamy is “as large as the LGBTQ population in the United States.” The LGBTQIA2S+ movement has announced the latest addition to its ever-growing acronym: CNM, which stands for Consensual Non-Monogamy, or open relationships of the variety common in the LGBT community.
The contrast between LGBT activists’ rhetoric a mere seven years ago and now reflects their private statements that concealment was the first stage until same-sex marriage became legal. The second was full visibility to transform and abolish marriage. “LGBT demands for access to marriage as a means of protecting and legitimizing their relationships represent … an assimilation politics that emphasizes the similarities of same-sex couples and families to their heterosexual counterparts, rather than a politics that emphasizes and celebrates their differences,” wrote a team of sociologists at University of California at Santa Barbera. Even the suggestion of sexual exclusivity within marriage reflects “heteronormativity,” they frowned. “By heteronormativity, we mean the set of ideas, norms, and practices that sustain heterosexuality and gender differentiation and hierarchy, including romantic love, monogamy, and reproductive sexuality.”
When marriages ceased being exclusively heterosexual, they ceased being monogamous. At least, that’s what these highly credentialed LGBT academics wrote. Nor are they alone; popular same-sex marriage activists admit undermining marital fidelity.